Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lyndonashmore
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fortis
Not at all, just that by your logic, the standard treatment of Compton scattering must assume longitudinal photon.
By the way, you still haven't shown mathematically that exactly the correct amount of energy is taken up by the rest of the plasma. (And if the plasma is included to conserve energy, then why can it also not carry some of the momentum?)
|
What we must all remember here gentlemen and Papageno, is that I am in a defensive position here. I did not post my theory on this site looking for advertisement. I did not post this thread. Papageno followed by Sylas attacked the theory. I am defending it. |
Fair enough, but justifying how you manage to balance both the momentum and energy would be part of a sensible defence. If you could demonstrate that, then you would blow a lot of the opposition out of the water. Unfortunately you don't seem to have done this. For example, you only transfer momentum to a single electron, but then assume that any energy balance is taken up by the plasma. If the plasma can carry away energy, then why can't it carry away momentum as well?
Quote:
|
It is sufficient in these circumstances to defend by showing what utter tripe these two are suggesting.
|
The problem is that (apart from what appear to be typos) a lot of what they are saying makes a lot of sense, whereas you don't seem to be able to demonstrate the mechanism by which the conservation laws can be made to work in your theory. I find it hard to believe that you now say that
"Momentum is not coserved for the electron since it has an external force acting on it - the electric field of the photon. This is why it gains energy and momentum in this direction."
Surely the equation that you use to calculate the energy lost to recoil, assumes conservation of momentum? If momentum
isn't conserved for the electron-photon system, then presumably your equation is inappropriate?
Quote:
|
I will continue to do so. I have shown time and time again what nonsense they are talking about. That is all that is needed.
|
Except that they make a lot more sense than you attribute to them.
Quote:
I do want to talk about other things, but until I have put down this revolt we cannot do so. Whilst the theory is attacked I will defend.
Simple as that.
|
Fair enough, but as I said you still haven't convincingly answered the weakness in your model regarding the conservation laws. You appear to be inconsistent in the way that you treat them. Until you are able to provide a better (or more rigorous) answer, people will continue to poke at this.
Quote:
Quote:
[edited to improve ropy grammar  ]
|
prove it.
|
Hmmm. Unless there is a history file somewhere, this is rather hard to do. Is there something contentious in what I changed?